Hasty Disapproval
(March 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) For years cricket has been beset with poor umpiring decisions. Some of these decisions have impacted on the course of a game and swung the outcome in favour of one side. In the past decade or so the evidence of new technologies has revealed such flaws in all their nakedness. Despite such evidence some cricketers continued to bury their head in the sand and claim that poor decisions in their favour evened out. This was arrant nonsense because the balancing out did not necessarily occur within the same match.
In this context the Referral System was introduced on a trial basis by the ICC for good reasons, reasons that I will specify in detail in the second part of my essay. The trial referral scheme, alas, has generated a series of knee-jerk reactions of distaste from a range of voices. The negativity is absolutely mind-boggling. Among the voices are a number of captains directed by the immediate circumstance of this or that decision or the weight of referrals going against their team. Kumble in Sri Lanka in 2008 as well as Vettori and Gayle in New Zealand in 2009 are examples of such a response.
There are also the usual suspects from within the die-hard conservative order. Some are from the umpiring fraternity defending the regime of on-field umpires. Daryl Hair, predictably, is one such voice, with Malcom Conn, equally predictably, serving as sidekick trumpet (Australian, March 2009).
What I find most disappointing is the critical interpretations served out by normally insightful commentators, such as Sambit Bal and Tony Cozier. Cozier’s reaction appears to be prompted by some terrible interventions by the third umpire during the ongoing West Indies-England series. But the third umpire at several such moments was Daryl Harper who has an unenviable record of terrible or poor decisions as on-field umpire (with Murali and Sri Lanka at the sharp end of some of these not-outs) – confirming that any monitoring system is only as good as its personnel. I have not seen the TV versions of these contentious decisions of referral so I cannot comment further.
However, I was present through most of the India-Sri Lanka Test Series in July August 2008 from the same vantage point in the press box as Sambit Bal and my verdict is diametrically opposed to his: in my view the referral scheme is among the best recent innovations in cricket. This is not because Sri Lanka was favoured by the weight of such referrals. That weightage, after all, arose in part because in Ajantha Mendis they have a bowler who bowls wicket to wicket and in part because the Sri Lankans used the scheme judiciously.
There was reason for my verdict. Some fair decisions were reached with the aid of the Referral System on occasions when it would have been impossible for the on-field umpire to have reached a conclusive verdict. A case in point was Tendulkar being given out caught – quite brilliantly by Dilshan at leg-slip – at the SSC ground after the ball went pad to glove and curled back over Dilshan’s shoulder. From the vantage of press box above and behind the wicket I immediately thought it was out. It would have been virtually impossible for the main umpire to discern the series of effects. He rightly denied the call. The fielders knew that it was a definite catch and called the referrals into play. Replays enabled the third umpire to communicate with the on-field umpire and restore justice.
This sort of restitution of fair decision, whether in favour of the batsman, or, alternatively, the fielding side, will occur in other games. My impression is that it has happened fairly often during the trial of the Referral System though I have not kept count. It is vital that batsmen given out caught behind off a nick on shirt or hip should be permitted to bat on through corrections with the aid of referrals. Likewise, especially with hot-spot now added to the review scheme, referrals enable a fine-tuned assessment of nicks, off pad, or non-nicks, to close-in fielders; or lbw decisions where there is a suspicion of a prior edge off bat.
Two recent incidents during the Third Test between Australia and South Africa provide strong evidence in support of the Referral System. The left-hander Hughes was given out lbw by Bucknor to the left-hander Harris’s break moving in. The decision was not challenged, but the TV commentators adjudicated that a referral would have led to a reversal because the point of contact was not quite between wicket and wicket. Two days later, on 21 March, Bucknor gave Harris out to Katich’s googly breaking from off and clearly heading for the stumps. Harris challenged the verdict through a referral and was reprieved.
These were replica cases within the same match. They underline the value of the Referral System. In neither instance was Bucknor’s initial verdict a poor decision. That is, his erroneous verdict was an understandable line-ball call, a Category C error as distinct from Category B, viz., Poor Decision and Category A, Horrendous Decision. In no way was the reversal in Harris’s case an indictment of on-field umpires. Rather Bucknor should be pleased that he was able to participate in reversing an understandable line-ball error.
The different types of line-ball decisions are the realms where controversy has developed. One strand of criticism leveled at the referral scheme concentrates on line-ball lbw decisions dependent on verdicts as to whether the ball pitched on the imaginary lines between wicket and wicket on the leg-side. The referral that saved Michael Hussey in South Africa recently is one such example. As part of a general argument about lack of consistency, Justin Langer argues against this reversing act.
“Replays showed it pitched about a quarter of a centimetre outside leg stump. It looked plumb but was shown to just a smudge outside the line. If you can’t give that out, you can’t give anything.” (Australian, March 2009).
This verdict moves from one specific type of case that has promoted malcontent voices to a generalization about all referrals. Note that Langer’s strident voice ends with a gross exaggeration – marked here in bold letters. There are many lbws, occasionally even those challenged by a batsman’s referral, where it is shown conclusively that the ball pitched within the mat, so, here, Langer is spitting s..t. It is important to stress in counterpoint that there are some reversals of Category C or Category B decisions because the slow-motion replay with aid of photographic mat has revealed that the ball pitched outside the mat.
Those are the lucid cases of re-evaluation of decisions. The controversial arena is where the review shows that the ball is partly in and partly out. That is, the problem arises because the technology is so precise, indeed, very, very precise [in contrast to seeming bump-ball catches where the camera actually obscures clarity]. Surely, then, the answer is for the ICC to consult a body of umpires and then to proceed towards a ruling: say, where over 50 percent of the ball is on the edge or, alternatively, where it is even a smidgeon on the mat, then, the batsman is deemed out.
In brief, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is evident that the detractors are demanding hundred per cent accuracy in the Referral System and deeming it flawed because such a rate has not been secured. But we should be pleased that the scheme has improved the status quo and done so quite measurably. That is why I regard the litany of complaints to be quite extraordinary.
In fine-tuning the system of referrals, then, what the cricketing world needs to have now is (1) a statistical table of the various categories of referrals that have been made, reversed and confirmed; and (2) an accompanying video series that assembles all the cases in a series of types so that a proper evaluation can be made of each type.
This review should also mark out errors in a scale of categories. The classificatory marking scheme that I advocate would have three scales: Category A would indicate a horrendous umpiring blunder; examples would be Bucknor deeming Symonds not out when he nicked the ball in such manifest fashion at Sydney against India; or Koertzen giving Sangakkara out at 192 runs at Bellerive Oval during the Second Test vs Australia on 20 November 2007 . Category B would be “poor decisions” of a less obvious character; and Category C would be line-ball decisions of an understandable character such as those outlined above (Bucknor in South Africa and Tendulkar not out at the SSC).
Gross Problems within the Previous Dispensation
The hyper-critical commentary directed against the ICC’s Referral System of umpiring adjudication has been typically one-eyed. It focuses on specific instances and then condemns the whole system. Worse still it argues its case without any reference to the pre-existing scheme of things and its many shortcomings. Calls for the rejection of the Referral System would mean a return to the bad old order.
Before challenging some of the criticisms hurled at the Referral System, therefore, let me set out the weakness in the previous regime of decision-making that was dominated, for the most part, by the two on-field umpires. I attend to this in point-form for ease of cross-reference.
A. In the previous era it was feasible for teams to intimidate the umpires by a chorus of voices or a whole process of questioning of decisions (the latter an art-form perfected by Shane Warne). The pressure of voices was sometimes orchestrated by dint of constant practice gained at lower levels of the game and even perhaps instilled by coaches. This is a form or professional one-upmanship that can be quite cynical. In any event those nourished in these fine-tuned dramatic performances and those who have eleven players well-versed in English-speak are at a distinct advantage in securing advantageous decisions from umpires over the course of a match or series. The Aussies have benefited for years from this skewing of the level-playing field. If one drew up a list of Category A blunders by umpires in the last five years, my suspicion is that the beneficiaries with the single biggest majority of cases would be the Australians (I recall two from Aleem Dar in addition to those by Koertzen and Bucknor; and one can add Bucknor vs Dravid at Sydney to that list – from just the few games I have watched).
B. There has been no consistency in the process of decision-making. Thus we have a system prone to inconsistency, inconsistency across different umpires and sometimes even inconsistent evaluations by the same umpire.
In brief, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is evident that the detractors are demanding hundred per cent accuracy in the Referral System and deeming it flawed because such a rate has not been secured. But we should be pleased that the scheme has improved the status quo and done so quite measurably. That is why I regard the litany of complaints to be quite extraordinary.
In fine-tuning the system of referrals, then, what the cricketing world needs to have now is (1) a statistical table of the various categories of referrals that have been made, reversed and confirmed; and (2) an accompanying video series that assembles all the cases in a series of types so that a proper evaluation can be made of each type.
This review should also mark out errors in a scale of categories. The classificatory marking scheme that I advocate would have three scales: Category A would indicate a horrendous umpiring blunder; examples would be Bucknor deeming Symonds not out when he nicked the ball in such manifest fashion at Sydney against India; or Koertzen giving Sangakkara out at 192 runs at Bellerive Oval during the Second Test vs Australia on 20 November 2007 . Category B would be “poor decisions” of a less obvious character; and Category C would be line-ball decisions of an understandable character such as those outlined above (Bucknor in South Africa and Tendulkar not out at the SSC).
Gross Problems within the Previous Dispensation
The hyper-critical commentary directed against the ICC’s Referral System of umpiring adjudication has been typically one-eyed. It focuses on specific instances and then condemns the whole system. Worse still it argues its case without any reference to the pre-existing scheme of things and its many shortcomings. Calls for the rejection of the Referral System would mean a return to the bad old order.
Before challenging some of the criticisms hurled at the Referral System, therefore, let me set out the weakness in the previous regime of decision-making that was dominated, for the most part, by the two on-field umpires. I attend to this in point-form for ease of cross-reference.
A. In the previous era it was feasible for teams to intimidate the umpires by a chorus of voices or a whole process of questioning of decisions (the latter an art-form perfected by Shane Warne). The pressure of voices was sometimes orchestrated by dint of constant practice gained at lower levels of the game and even perhaps instilled by coaches. This is a form or professional one-upmanship that can be quite cynical. In any event those nourished in these fine-tuned dramatic performances and those who have eleven players well-versed in English-speak are at a distinct advantage in securing advantageous decisions from umpires over the course of a match or series. The Aussies have benefited for years from this skewing of the level-playing field. If one drew up a list of Category A blunders by umpires in the last five years, my suspicion is that the beneficiaries with the single biggest majority of cases would be the Australians (I recall two from Aleem Dar in addition to those by Koertzen and Bucknor; and one can add Bucknor vs Dravid at Sydney to that list – from just the few games I have watched).
B. There has been no consistency in the process of decision-making. Thus we have a system prone to inconsistency, inconsistency across different umpires and sometimes even inconsistent evaluations by the same umpire.
C. There have been some matches where gross blunders of the Category A type have swayed the results of the match overwhelmingly towards one side. The Test Match between India and Australia at Sydney on 2-6 January 2008 was an outstanding instance because two of Bucknor’s howlers hurt India severely. Add Michael Clarke’s catch and we had three horrendous blunders. Australia’s victory was as hollow as horrid to non-partisan watchers; but it stands in the record books and statistical sheets.
Criticisms of the Referral System
One of the common criticisms of the Referral System is that there has been no consistency in adjudication. Maybe; but then the same problem is integral to the pre-existing system. So we are fifty:fifty on this point. Any system, after all, is only as good or consistent as the personnel working it.
Another strident complaint is that it takes up too much time. This grievance has been raised on air and is also one of the principal motifs in Malcom Conn’s lamentations. This is a remarkable gripe. Here we have a game played over a whole day (ODI) or over five days (Tests) and people -- well, not people, but cricket buffs – complain that umpires take time to get a decision right!
There is a cultural underpinning to this litany. Many people in the Western world mostly at a frenetic pace: just compare the walking pace of an average Westerner with that of an average Asian stroller. The emphasis on energetic procedural action even extends to office work. This tendency translates into impatience with dilly-dallying. Referrals do involve some dilly-dallying. For good reasons: a wrong decision can swing a match one way or another. Impatience among the influential commentators on such occasions is a monumental crime in such situations. Our TV pontiffs must turn introspective and look to another God at these moments.
Refinements Required
I urge the ICC to retain the Referral System, but to refine it further. The arguments for the system are contained in the bevy of reasons summed up above as Points A and C through a summary of the outstanding criticisms of the previous dispensation. I further advocate a return to the scheme permitting a side to use three referrals per innings.
But more fine-tuning is required. Ian Chappell raised a pertinent point on radio-air a few weeks back. What about the skewing of match after a side has used up its quota of referrals? That is, what if an on-field umpire commits a howler, whether Category A howler or a Category B howler, at such periods? After all, such a blunder can conceivably turn the course of match.
My suggestion is that, once referrals are used up, the Third Umpire in review box should be authorised to immediately signal “blunder” to the official-on-field through some buzz system; so that the latter can then initiate a referral himself and review the decision with the aid of the Third Umpire. In brief every effort must be made to rid the game of monumental blunders by umpires. The umpiring task is an exacting one and we now have the technology to assist these intrepid fellows. My suspicion is that most top-level umpires today -- other than those who think they are God – would actually favour the new scheme of things.
Recently, 22 March 2008, one witnessed the advantage of the Referral System -- boosted as it is now by the use of hot pot. As Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Macdonald bravely fought to save Australia from an innings rout, Bucknor gave the latter out caught bat pad off Harris by Villiers. Macdonald immediately called for review (though he surely knew ….!!!). My first impression after seeing the slow-mo replay was that it had missed the bat. But another angle convinced me that there was a nick. Then hot spot came into the review technology. That clinched matters. Mark Nicholas yelled out in excitement: there was a nick from bat to pad. Justice was done. Bucknor’s reading of this line-ball decision was spot-on -- hot spot on!
Yet the previous day, two of the TV commentary team (I cannot recall whom: Wessels and one other maybe) had cast aspersions on the Referral System by noting that it had led to a reduction in on-field confrontations between batsmen and fielders (that is my point A above, the reduction of intimidation of all types and a distinct advance in cricketing sportsmanship). This positive improvement was said to be a loss: our TV guides missed the excitement of face-to-face confrontations around the batting pitch!
This type of virulent confrontation, as we know, is intertwined with attitudes and processes that heap pressure on umpires. Just occasionally, too, this argie-bargie serves up scenes of snarling bowlers, man as animal, confronting batsman. Of course, at such moments, the TV commentators will adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and speak of players going beyond the limits. But some cricketers press the limits and bend the rules because this policy pays dividends. Verbal intimidation can disturb a batsman and prise a wicket, or, alternatively, orchestrated verbal pressure can induce an umpire to err in their favour. It is cynical sportsmanship designed to skew the principle of a level playing field. The Referral System now provides one corrective.
There are other correctives too that could weed out bad sportsmanship. But the ICC is too weak-kneed to follow the rugger and soccer codes and institute a system of sin-bins during a match in order to eradicate cheating and/or verbal intimidation of a gross character.
Criticisms of the Referral System
One of the common criticisms of the Referral System is that there has been no consistency in adjudication. Maybe; but then the same problem is integral to the pre-existing system. So we are fifty:fifty on this point. Any system, after all, is only as good or consistent as the personnel working it.
Another strident complaint is that it takes up too much time. This grievance has been raised on air and is also one of the principal motifs in Malcom Conn’s lamentations. This is a remarkable gripe. Here we have a game played over a whole day (ODI) or over five days (Tests) and people -- well, not people, but cricket buffs – complain that umpires take time to get a decision right!
There is a cultural underpinning to this litany. Many people in the Western world mostly at a frenetic pace: just compare the walking pace of an average Westerner with that of an average Asian stroller. The emphasis on energetic procedural action even extends to office work. This tendency translates into impatience with dilly-dallying. Referrals do involve some dilly-dallying. For good reasons: a wrong decision can swing a match one way or another. Impatience among the influential commentators on such occasions is a monumental crime in such situations. Our TV pontiffs must turn introspective and look to another God at these moments.
Refinements Required
I urge the ICC to retain the Referral System, but to refine it further. The arguments for the system are contained in the bevy of reasons summed up above as Points A and C through a summary of the outstanding criticisms of the previous dispensation. I further advocate a return to the scheme permitting a side to use three referrals per innings.
But more fine-tuning is required. Ian Chappell raised a pertinent point on radio-air a few weeks back. What about the skewing of match after a side has used up its quota of referrals? That is, what if an on-field umpire commits a howler, whether Category A howler or a Category B howler, at such periods? After all, such a blunder can conceivably turn the course of match.
My suggestion is that, once referrals are used up, the Third Umpire in review box should be authorised to immediately signal “blunder” to the official-on-field through some buzz system; so that the latter can then initiate a referral himself and review the decision with the aid of the Third Umpire. In brief every effort must be made to rid the game of monumental blunders by umpires. The umpiring task is an exacting one and we now have the technology to assist these intrepid fellows. My suspicion is that most top-level umpires today -- other than those who think they are God – would actually favour the new scheme of things.
Recently, 22 March 2008, one witnessed the advantage of the Referral System -- boosted as it is now by the use of hot pot. As Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Macdonald bravely fought to save Australia from an innings rout, Bucknor gave the latter out caught bat pad off Harris by Villiers. Macdonald immediately called for review (though he surely knew ….!!!). My first impression after seeing the slow-mo replay was that it had missed the bat. But another angle convinced me that there was a nick. Then hot spot came into the review technology. That clinched matters. Mark Nicholas yelled out in excitement: there was a nick from bat to pad. Justice was done. Bucknor’s reading of this line-ball decision was spot-on -- hot spot on!
Yet the previous day, two of the TV commentary team (I cannot recall whom: Wessels and one other maybe) had cast aspersions on the Referral System by noting that it had led to a reduction in on-field confrontations between batsmen and fielders (that is my point A above, the reduction of intimidation of all types and a distinct advance in cricketing sportsmanship). This positive improvement was said to be a loss: our TV guides missed the excitement of face-to-face confrontations around the batting pitch!
This type of virulent confrontation, as we know, is intertwined with attitudes and processes that heap pressure on umpires. Just occasionally, too, this argie-bargie serves up scenes of snarling bowlers, man as animal, confronting batsman. Of course, at such moments, the TV commentators will adopt a holier-than-thou attitude and speak of players going beyond the limits. But some cricketers press the limits and bend the rules because this policy pays dividends. Verbal intimidation can disturb a batsman and prise a wicket, or, alternatively, orchestrated verbal pressure can induce an umpire to err in their favour. It is cynical sportsmanship designed to skew the principle of a level playing field. The Referral System now provides one corrective.
There are other correctives too that could weed out bad sportsmanship. But the ICC is too weak-kneed to follow the rugger and soccer codes and institute a system of sin-bins during a match in order to eradicate cheating and/or verbal intimidation of a gross character.
Excellent analysis. I too was disgusted by seeing how an unbiased writer had become a bigot overnight, buying into the LTTE propaganda and aiding to protect the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world. Here you can see even the ex LTTE members speaking against LTTE http://vosl.blogspot.com
Post a Comment